Talk:Republicanism

2002
The term republic most commonly means the system of government in which the head of state is elected for a limited term, as opposed to a constitutional monarchy

but republic says:


 * Most of the dictatorial or totalitarian states in the world today are republics.

so are dictatorships republics or not?


 * Definitely not. The only two meaningful definitions of a Republic come from either Montesquieu or Madison. Montesquieu calls them Aristocratic if there are elections, and Democratic if everyone is a legislator. Madison describes, in Federalist 39, that a Republic is a government where all Officers (including Judges) are either elected, or appointed by people who are elected. JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

 * ... and their political wing Sinn Féin who support violence as a means of establishing a republic


 * ... Sinn Féin's move away from violence has resulted in increased support and ...

So with these developments are Sinn Féin no longer considered republicans in Ireland?

Athens
Athens was a democracy. All the citizens voted on the issues all the time and the few public officials required were chosen by lot. They didn't even have the term republic. The modern republic with it's emphasis on elections would have been a oligarchy (rule by the few) to the Athenians. Athens is perhaps the only example of pure democracy applied on a national scale, because women didn't have voting rights, and people living in Athens could never become Atheneans if they weren't born by an [and later both parents] Athenian father. Rousseau proposed a system exactly like Athens because he supported sexism and racism over immigrants. A democracy rather than a republic.


 * Regardless if they had the term, since only 10% of Athenians were allowed to vote, the example of 15-16th century Poland comes close. They did not, however, have any officials (that I am aware of) elected by lottery. By Montesquieu's definition, there are two types of Republics, Aristocratic (ours) and Democratic (Athens). JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The US

 * The US Constitution garruntees a republican form of government; which is not clearly defined but implied; but is it not implied that democracy culminates in republicanism?

Isn't it obvious that republicanism respects no partisan, but makes clear the utility of philosophy, religion, art and science; and must prove business to follow the will of the people, supported by the keystone of liberty?

Does not the preamble of the US constitution prescribe the purpose of a republican form of government; which is republicanism?Sir Fartalot 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article should reflect how the word "republic" is actually used, today and historically, and not limit itself to the definitions made by two historical thinkers. Mirambo 16:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is incoherent
This article is incoherent, because it tries to pretend there is a single meaning of "republicanism". Basically, the term has been used in so many diverse contexts these days, that it is better to identify the various meanings associated with it, and treat them as distinct concepts, nonetheless having some historical links. For example, this article implies that a republic is in some form opposed to a democracy -- an understanding that the Ancient Greeks or American Founding Father's may have had, but which has nothing to do with how "republicanism" is used by most Australians for example, or by most Catholics in Northern Ireland -- and then, Australians and Northern Ireland Catholics mean quite different things by these terms anyway! --137.111.13.34 07:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an interesting side note is that all the Founders loved Montesquieu. It is what George Washington studied for the Second Constitutional Convention JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Better Summary for Canadian Republicanism
Having moved a very long chapter on Canadian Republicanism to its own page, the summary here needs to be improved. This summary is based upon the original long article, but it does not tie into the republicanism page very well. Also I cannot know whether the summary represents the most important points. Perhaps someone will like to improve it.

Canadian Republicanism now having its own page, the history of the movement can be recorded in appropriate detail. Perhaps the same person should improve the structure and detail of that page also.

What fools and hypocrites
As to the knowledge and expertise of our infamous Dr. SimonP of Republican theory. Let me quote Machiavelli's TRUE definition:


 * Thus the sagacious legislators, knowing the vices of each of these systems of government, (i.e. speaking of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) by themselves, have chosen one that should partake of all of them, judging that to be the most stable and solid. In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check."  "Discourses on Titus Livius" end of Book I chapter II, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, ed. by Robert M. Adams, pg 94.


 * "I think, then, that to found a republic which whould endure a long time it would be bewst to organize her internally like Sparta, or to locate her, like Venice, in some strong place". ibid, pg 97.WHEELER 16:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He deleted it off the Talk:Republic page. What is he trying to cover up?---his incompetence?WHEELER 21:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The quotes are still at Talk:Republic. I never deleted them, nor has anyone else. - SimonP 22:03, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Machiavelli wrote about/for the Medici TYRANTS. The hereditary aristocratic oligarchic "Republicans" of Florence were not his ideal, nor for whom he wrote. I am deeply offended that his handbook for Tyrants, "The Prince," was mentioned in the context of Republicanism. Scholars ahve, wisely, written that Machiavelli was the proponent of the divorce of politics and morals. JoshNarins 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Two Versions" template
At the time of putting the "two versions" template the discussion is about whether or not "republicanism" should be a redirect to "republic", or whether republic and republicanism should each be articles in their own right.

The pro's and con's are discussed, for instance:
 * Talk:Republic
 * User_talk:Jtdirl

Anyway, there appears no consensus to merge the two articles. For myself I think the split is necessary to avoid unending discussions over NPOV issues. --Francis Schonken 11:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be vehemently opposed to merging the two. This article lacks accuracy, and consistancy and is often outright wrong in some of its assertions. In the study of comparative politics which is the study of various forms of government a republic is simply a form or governance that has a central power and subsidiary regioal power. An example of a Federal government and State government of the United States. Despite the example given there is no reason to assume that a republic is a democracy. Rome was a Republic, a highly centrally power based government with subsidary powers. France is in its Fifth republic. Dave 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a major rewrite is due

 * The very first sentence of this article is - as far as I know from my degree in comparative politics - flat wrong. The entire article is based on incorrect and inaccurate premises from the point of view of political science.
 * Given this opinion I would like to see a major rewrite of this article done or in the absence of doing that some valid source citation for the information contained in the article.

Any and all comments, suggestions and critiques are not only welcome but invited. I have no desire to simply do a rewrite overnight because I disagree with the results of somebody elses hard work. Kudos to them for having spent the time to do the article in the first place! Dave 03:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should read the other article, but this article leaves me flat.

Cicero
I also think the section on the Roman Republic needs work, especially in regards to Cicero. It is my understanding that we really only have bits and pieces of the republic, yet Cicero does write quite a lot about we could call republican philosophy. So maybe references to De Officiis, De Legibus, etc would be more appropriate. Furthermore, I recall that he spoke quite a bit against having kings/dictators as the form of government, because no matter how efficient they can be, they inevitably become tyrants. I'm wandering here, sorry, it's quite late for me. Anyway, Cicero's political writings are very important to this article because they so influenced the topic for nearly two millenia. If you read his stuff, you start seeing things that can be attributed to it everywhere. Novium 08:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional republic
Anyone want to help develop Constitutional republic? I just created the article and am amazed that it didn't exist, as it's the U.S. form of state. RJII 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any other kind of Republic, though? Granite26 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Parlementry Republics for one and I believe, though I haven't check and could be wrong, More people exist in Parlementry Republics than Constitutional.(Morcus (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

The Republican Synthesis and the American Revolution
"First and last it was a republican revolution, as historians such as Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, Lance Banning and many others have demonstrated." This sentence should be revised: the nature of the American Revolution is an open historiographical debate. A number of eminent historians have argued that the Revolution was in fact more liberal than republican. The whole section on republican ideology in America needs revision.
 * The consensus since 1990 is pretty strongly in favor of republicanism --who are the dissenters? Rjensen 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Two sections division
The difference between "Republicanism in the political sciences" and "Anti-monarchial republicanism" seems rather arbitrary. Why isn't Classical republicanism in the first section, instead of in the second? What kind of republicanism is not anti-monarchial? Finally, having Kant opening up the second section is kind of strange, as in no way his views can be said to be common! I think these two sections should properly be merged, as they are overlapping between themselves. Tazmaniacs 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * merger is a poor idea. Rjensen 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In British English, a republican monarchy is a contradiction in terms, but in American English it isn't. But if you read the article about Republicanism in Australia, it refers exclusively to anti-monarchism.  Similarly, in Britain and many other countries, a republican is defined as an anti-monarchist. -86.134.90.205

Objectivity? or USA-centrism?
I question the objectivity of this article. It reads like pure United States propaganda, or at best, U.S. junior high school civics, i.e., indoctrination. All a republic really is, is a government whose 'head' (however conceived) is not, as such, a prince(ss). This is why dictators (fascist, communist, or other) can call their governments republics. Actually, maybe it's a problem of non-global POV: Americans believe a 'proper republic' is a "representative democracy," that's why they don't accept fascist or communist states' claims at being republics. (Nor theoretical "direct democracies," traditionally.) But to most of the world, all a republic is, is as I've defined it above. The article should be thrown out, or recast in terms as I've discussed.


 * I disagree, I think that throughout most of history republic and representative democracy were pretty much the same thing.  Certainly this was the definition through the 1700s and early 1800s when most of this was going on.  I think that you are mistaking (non-elective systems) tendency to try to co-opt the... (general good things) associated with the republican system as an actual muddying of the definition's waters.  In short, every definition I found said something along the lines of 'the people have a say in the government'.  That being said, there's nothing that says that a communist state couldn't also be a republic. Granite26 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Républicanisme here
The latter is a stub, and I'm not sure one can really distinguish that much French Republicanism from the tradition of Republicanism in general. In any cases, even if Republicanism in France may have some discrete features (close to the Radicalism tradition, insistance on secularism) "Republicanism" is not so long yet as to justify a spin-out. Tazmaniacs 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Even if it could be expanded, it would be fine as a section of this article. Scolaire 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I included the entire text from Republicanisme into this article. Please, make sure it works!--Getoar 04:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It works. Somebody should please nominate Républicanisme for deletion! 206.45.152.130 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed every keystroke of Républicanisme is now in this article. Good job, Getoar. What was then needed was not a deletion, but simply a redirect, which I have now done. That is, Républicanisme now redirects to Republicanism. Hult041956 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Republicanism in the 1780's
The term "republicanism" as it applied applies in the United States has become ab-used over the last 30 years. The current political interpretation is one which places too much emphasis on "civic virtue" while at the same time warping that phrase to pronounce a dictatorial Christian morality.

As the Federal Convention assembled in May of 1787 it's members did agree, though, on some basic principles and use of terms. All believed in government by consent, which in eighteenth century understanding included (1) constitutional monarchy, where the monarch's powers were limited and where the government included an assembly elected by the people; (2) a republic, meaning some form of representative government without a hereditary executive; and (3) democracy, which meant either town meeting style democracy, or simply the direct voice of the people within a government. The Revolutionary struggle against the government of George III left even constitutional monarchy in ill-repute in America. (Many letters, however, including at times John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, continued to think it theoretically the form most likely to insure freedom and good government). Equally discredited was "mere democracy" which still meant, as Aristotle had taught, rule by the passionate, ignorant, demagogue-dominated "voice of the people". This was sure to produce first injustice, then anarchy, and finally tyranny. Hence, virtually all shades of opinion reviled monarchy and democracy, and, publicly at least, affirmed republicanism. (This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists).

In 1787, republicanism then was positioned between monarchy and "mere democracy". As it benefited from experience of the years after 1776 and struggled to contain the tension between "inalienable rights", and majority rule, republicanism became both more moderate and more intricate. A broadly based lower house of a legislature continued to be basic to government by consent, but increasingly, the election of other officials came to be regarded as good republican practice. Also, mindful of colonial experience, and following the arguments of Montesquieu, the idea that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers had to be "separated", made to "check and balance" each other in order to prevent tyranny, gained wide acceptance. This often validated devices of government that would restrain or "refine" the will of the majority in order to protect rights, or "higher law".

Thus, while eighteenth-century American republicanism was committed to the sovereignty of the people, it was also a complicated approach to government. It opposed traditional monarchical tyranny, but was equally hostile to mob rule. It also sought balancing and refining devices that would at once restrain the power of rulers, encourage the better judgment of the people, and enable the union to defend itself in a dangerous world. Edmund Burke stated the problem succinctly. "To make a government requires no great prudence; settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it is only necessary to let go the rein. But to form a free government, that is, to temper together the opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one conscious work, requires much thought; deep reflection; a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind." -- "Anti-federalist papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" - Ralph Ketcham, page 6. --The Trucker 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Liberty versus dangers of democracy
The first sentence in the section "Liberty versus dangers of democracy" has a sentence that is obviously wrong, but I don't know what is intended, so I have no idea how to fix it: "Original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they of democracy." CosineKitty (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I read that as "what they (thought of as the dangers) of democracy" which is coherent with the thoughts of the framers and the form of the section. Also, I'm changing the tag to the section name Granite26 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Made this change Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this whole section meanders around quite a bit. I think that the point needs to be made that the founding fathers were scared witless at the thought of mob rule, but the second paragraph meanders of into talking about universal sufferage (as if letting women and minorities vote was the danger, as opposed to 51% of the populace voting themselves rights to the property of the 49%). I don't have the domain knowledge to fix this though. Granite26 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a little bit about the Tyranny of the masses Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the last line "In the late 1860s suffrage was extended to African Americans." should probably have a quibble in it. I think it should have an 'at least in theory' tacked onto the end of it. Any objections? Granite26 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added this. I think it's important to note that de jeur sufferage didn't become de facto until much later Granite26 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the presence of a large number of African American elected officials in the South in the Reconstruction era shows that at least some freed slaves could vote. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Larry Siegel
 * And the subsequent disappearance of such after the end of Reconstruction and Federal occupation demonstrates that for about 90 years, the rights of most blacks to vote in much of the South remained largely theoretical. 23:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B11E:C3D7:E157:EA9E:DB98:2DE1 (talk)

I am tired of a singular authority
Learn from history.

The Roman Republic was founded under the leadership of 2 consuls, during times of crisis one of the consuls would become a dictator until the crisis was settled. But this system failed, so we need a better republican & democratic system.

I prefer we go back to basics with 100 senators instead of 1 leader.

President has too much characteristics of an autocracy & monarchy, this system is not at all good for society. But republicanism is Representation of the Gerenal Public, the Senatus Populus Que Romana is the foundation of the Roman Republic. So a presidency which ignores the senate & population is not a republican, actually republican presidency is devolution of modern politics.

We need a republican system which represents the general public.

Sincerely, Phalanx Pursos 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Give constitutional monarchy a try. --G2bambino (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know how many states to a country there are, if one person messes it up then a whole country blunders due to 1 person.
 * Start learning about prudence & responsibility. Phalanx Pursos 12:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This entire article
It's worthless. The initial assertions are false, the classical antecedents section is unreferenced. Republicanism does not refer to a movement 'committed to liberty' at all. Apparently the only source is the 'Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy'. Hardly academic. I vote it be removed, or replaced with 'Republicanism refers to movements opposed to an hereditary head of state.' Which is what the term means. Molotov2 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The word liberty definitely should never be used in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixotic0823 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I Agree
This entire article is worthless. The reference to "an emphasis on liberty" has nothing to do with the topic. "Republicanism" which is a form of goverment werein Liberty is your rights to select it over the will of Eminent Domain.13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the whole thing
This article is so bad it would be better if it didn't exist. I don't mean to offend anyone, so let me keep strictly to what I think should be done in order to write a good article on republicanism:

1. Admit it has multiple meanings, historically and geographically. 2. Expose those meanings, and relate it to the origin of the word. 3. Find those basic meanings that are common - I guess it will be something on the lines of "against monarchy, hereditary rule, or any kind of sovereignity above the law that people are submitted to", and "the belief on the existence of things that should be public - that means, not private". Remember that res publica means "public thing". But it would be great if someone pointed out some other meanings that were also common. 3. Never, under any circunstance, suggest that "real republicanism should be....". There's no "true republicanism" waiting for us to find out what it is. 4. Finally, remember that republic is not the same as republicanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.45.231 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is true. This and several other articles are in the state they are in because of a now-banned user who wished to push a particular point of view.  Total rewrite would be in order.  RJC Talk Contribs 04:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this article is fine. Could you be more specific in your criticisms? -- LightSpectra (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming England section
Ok, usually I would just be bold and make such a trivial change but I keep getting reverted. I wish to rename the England Section to "England, Ireland and Scotland" or Great Britain. This is because the section covers more than just England-related material. Some examples: 1) The Commonwealth of England covered not just England but the entire British Isles (see the map on Commonwealth of England). 2) The same is true of the Glorious Revolution both William and Mary were not only monarchs of England but also monarchs of Scotland and Ireland. 3) The American Revolution is also mentioned. The Americans did not wage war against England but against the state of Great Britain. --Cameron* 17:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the solution is to use "Britain" -- that's the term most historians use.Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is talking about Republicanism *in* England. It is talking about the thinkers behind it, and one instance of it being put into practice. However at the time Cromwell put it into practice it only affected England (and Wales). But the section does not talk about Republicanism in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, only England. Incorrect changes are not trivial changes. O Fenian (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, Britain is good. I've added some info so it shouldn't be a problem now. --Cameron* 11:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those belong in the "Enlightenment republicanism" section. O Fenian (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy and Religion
The article should maybe try to explain why the early Republics were built in opposition to clericalism and religious power, and why Monarchies were asociated with religion, while Republics were not, the exception being the Islamic republics of the East. In France, the Third Republic had a good dose of anticlericalism, the Mexican Republic too, much like the pre-1936 Republic of Spain. In America too, there was a rejection of the official/established Anglican Church during the Revolution. ADM (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient India
The section on Ancient India is unsourced; related Wiki articles are based on vague references in the Encyclopedia Britannica. However in its main article on India the EB clarly states: "The political system in these states was either monarchical or a type of representative government that variously has been called republican or oligarchic. The fact that representation in these latter states' assemblies was limited to members of the ruling clan makes the term oligarchy, or even chiefdom, preferable." That is it explictly rejects "republicanism" for these states, so I deleted the section.Rjensen (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And thank God someone had the good sense to explain the diffrerece between that and republicanism on the republicanism article. Or were you trying to say delete it and leave everyone in the dark? ~ R.T.G 22:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, but...
It makes me laugh to think of all the knee-jerk "modern" people out there who don't know of anything from before 1950, sipping a Starbucks and trying to understand this article, with its words like "Republicanism," "radical," "liberal," etc -- words which have little in common with their modern counterparts. Tragic romance (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah what a dumb wrd to use on the article Republicanism, republicanism. What? ~ R.T.G 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed photograph
I removed the featured photograph at the top of the article, because it was an inappropriate, immodest depiction. People be at least be able to come to Wikipedia and be safe from bombarding immodesty. E. Novachek (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What? ~ R.T.G 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Easy solution
It seems to me that much of the discussion in here is getting caught up about defining republicanism by what it was against instead of what it is for. I've seen people say it's monarchies, religious authorities, and even the majority. Why don't we take a little bit of a closer look and ask why they were against such things.? Tyranny is the answer, and the nexus of each of these things. Republics were created in order to protect against tyranny. That's the main purpose and I haven't seen a single soul point that out yet, which is pretty depressing.


 * Not so sure, if we consider Republics of the Soviet Union! 87.89.44.229 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC).


 * "Melvyn Bragg examines how English republicanism has developed from Cromwell to the present day." http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00546mp    truthdowser (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Republicanism in Ancient India" section removed
I entirely removed this section for the reasons that it was poorly written and lacking citations. It read as follows:

''Vaishali (ancient city) (Part of Modern State Bihar, India) is oldest and first Republic of World. It became repulic in 600 B.C similar to those later found in ancient Greece.''

I think Republicanism in India is a valuable topic which deserves a section in this article; however, the current section falls far below standards in many respects, and so I removed it altogether rather than let it stand as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimakides (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

U. S. Section Rather Obsolete
I had to smile when I read the Wiki entry, there is much here that no longer applies, not in the United States, not in most places of the world where there is a Constitution that regulates a Republic of even where a Monarchy regulates a Republic.

Republicanism in the United States in contemporary times is nothing like what is being described here in this article. Republicanism in the United States means wildly different ideologies are harbored by the extremist ideologically-right-wing of the political spectrum in the U.S., making the term obsolete when applied to that country. The term Republicanism may be wholly different outside of the United States, but when applied to that country the term holds completely different meaning.

Other Republics around the world have also either fractured and died (a.k.a. Balkenization) else they are better described as theocratic fascist Oligarchies, just as the United States is. Globalization and the technological means to compete economically world wide has killed the concept of Republicanism as predominantly described in this Wiki entry.

After reading the entry the best that could be said about it is that it is an historic phenomena that is being described, one that is very rare among contemporary nation States. Damotclese (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove the GOP swipe.
The swipe against the GOP should be removed it has little to do with this. Republicanism has it's own US page which spells out how it's come to be viewed over time. This paragraph does not appear there and seems to be more opinion than fact and the wording leads me to think it's biased. I'd leave the small portion defining Republicanism in early US history and point to the full Wikipedia article which is a much more complete article all around and far more useful. If opinion is needed the Republican party of Thomas Jefferson is not the current GOP I'd hate for them to usurp some benefit from that by such casual blurring of the original meaning.

This part:

"Since the 20th century, the term republicanism is more likely to refer to the policies of the Republican Party, the nation's right-wing political party, than to republican values generally."

Mrmeval1 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Republicanism in Spain
I think Republicanism in Spain deserves it's own article, comsidering it's long, bloody and complex history, and because it's also plays a role in contemporary Spanish politics. Charles Essie (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Be bold and create it. However, the section you have tagged is neither long nor complex. It is less than 200 words. I am deleting the "Split" tag because "splitting" a short and not particularly informative single-paragraph section does not make sense. Scolaire (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cross check with Jacobins page
One additional problem with the entry is that it contradicts the page on the Jacobins. That page argues, for example, that "Jacobin Club meetings soon became a place for radical and rousing oratory that pushed for republicanism, widespread education, universal suffrage, separation of church and state, and other reforms." This page instead says "In the history of French politics, Republicanism has had many enemies to overcome. There were the Jacobins of the Great Terror." This is at the very least confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.95.39 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * the Jacobins started out by promoting republicanism and ended by trying to execute anyone who disagreed with them. Rjensen (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the same as saying that they were the enemies of republicanism. The paragraph is awkward anyway, but the fact is that the Great Terror was a facet of republicanism, and to suggest otherwise is wrong. The sentence(s) need to be re-phrased. Perhaps "many problems to overcome" or some such. Scolaire (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no consistency between republicanism and Republicanism; see, again, the two pages. I took a crack at editing this section, trying not to change the content but make it more clear.  I did think it important to clarify that the idea that "time and again, republicanism has triumphed" in France is hardly an objective statement.
 * Not only is it not objective, it's unnecessary. I've replaced it with a simple "the republican system has survived". Scolaire (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
Okay, I give up. I tried to respond to some of the concerns expressed by the !, specifically, the opening information, and some fool changed it back. I apologize for referring to said person as a fool, but one of the things I fixed was a syntax error! I have a Ph D in English and don't have time to waste on this kind of foolishness. I made no real changes to the content whatsoever except to clarify what was already written. Someone clearly has a boner just to see his own crappy prose. So ciao for now.65.185.95.39 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you got a PhD in English (do they put a space in PhD where you come form?) judging by your contributions both here and on the article. I changed hardly anything back; mostly I just improved on your English. And it wasn't my crappy prose to begin with, so that insinuation won't fly. What was the syntax error? Was it in the sentence "The exact meaning of republicanism varies depending on the cultural and historical context"? Because that looks like good English to me (and turning it around looks awkward and forced). Can you point me to the rule that the sentence breaks? Scolaire (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. The dependent clause belongs at the beginning of the sentence, not at the end; it modifies the subject of the sentence.  You also removed my example of an oligarchy.  I teach college, and one of the most common errors students make is not understanding that an oligarchy is a republic. I followed the suggestion of the ! and tried to improve the article.  I thought that was what wikipedia is about.  But rather than let the changes stand to see if others here felt they were an improvement, you felt entitled to change my edits just a few hours after I made them.  I didn't realize this was your page; now I know better.65.185.95.39 (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * English Grammar 101: "A dependent clause may be found at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of a complex sentence." In case you'd prefer something more PhD-oriented, this page is from the Chicago–Kent College of Law, and uses as one example, "The trial court's ruling constituted a final order, although it could be reversed on appeal." Dependent clause at end.
 * Once again, this is not "my page". I have edited it very little, mostly to improve the English. You say you wanted your edits to stand "to see if others here felt they were an improvement". How could you know, if somebody didn't change them? And what on earth is the "!"? That is the second time you referred to it. Anyway, since you think it was an improvement, although I didn't see it as necessary, I'll add back the oligarchy. See, I believe in collaboration, not temper tantrums.
 * By the way, do you use language like "Someone clearly has a boner just to see his own crappy prose" when you're teaching college? Scolaire (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ireland
First, Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth. The independence was won after a bitter war, and Ireland didn't want anything to do with Britain afterwards.

Second, the word "republican" has an unusual meaning in Ireland. It is equated with nationalism and opposition to the 1926 partition. I'm not sure if that really belongs in this article. 82.31.40.109 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

How to phrase the truth?
Here is the way that the world is. In the 21st century, most of the nations of the world are republics in the sense that they are not monarchies. For many of them, they are republics ONLY in this sense. But how do you express that in what should be an encyclopedic, non-POV article? 2600:1004:B11E:C3D7:E157:EA9E:DB98:2DE1 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

== Nipponic presidentialism ==

Thai republicanism
*

Republican movements in Antigua and Barbuda & Jamaica
It appears that the push for a republic, has dwindled in the last several months, in Antigua and Barbuda & Jamaica. Anybody hear anymore about it? GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen such a tortured mess.
I agree that this article is incoherent. I believe that Wikipedia may be incapable of defining the term fairly and correctly without moderation largely due to its own ideological bent. I don't see this problem to this extent in other opposing views like Socialism, Leftism, etc. It needs to first define the term including variations, then discuss the history. It immediately spins off into non-definitions. There is no denying the wide range of uses and meanings that exist. We are seeing revisions revised, criticisms intertwined and, again, an extremely poor structure. There are some good elements within, but they are lost in a morass of poor structure, obfuscation and bias. It needs to be totally rewritten with more left out than left in. FlyZone (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)